State of H.P. Vs. Kamal Patiyal Cr.MP(M) No. 495 of 2025 11.7.2025 Present: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Rohit Shama, Dy. A.G., for the applicant. Mr. Mukul Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. Reply filed. The applicant-state of H.P. has filed the accompanying appeal, against the judgment of acquittal, dated 11.9.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Police Challan No. 134-II/18/16, titled as, ‘State of H.P. versus Kamal Patiyal’. Since, the appeal has been preferred after expiry of period, prescribed by the Limitation Act, as such, the present application has been filed, for condonation of delay. As per the averments made in the application, delay in filing the appeal is 24 days. However, as per the report of the Registry, delay in filing the appeal is about 30 days. Delay has been sought mainly on the ground of administrative exigency, as it has been pleaded in the application that before filing the appeal, before this Court, the matter was dealt with, at various levels. The application has duly been supported by the affidavit of Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. On the basis of above, a prayer has been made to condone the delay, in filing the appeal. When, put to notice, respondent Kamal Patiyal has filed the reply by taking preliminary objections that applicant is not able to make out a case for condoning the delay, as no sufficient cause has been pleaded in the application to condone the delay. Another objection to the application has also been taken on the ground that delay cannot be condoned, in a mechanical manner. On merits, the application has been contested mainly on the aforesaid grounds. Heard. Admittedly, the applicant-State is an impersonal identity and the matter before filing the appeal, is dealt with, at various levels. In the reply filed to the application, neither any inaction nor negligence has been attributed to the applicant. It is no longer res-integra that while deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, liberal approach is to be adopted, as the matter should be decided on merits, not on the technical grounds. Considering the aforesaid facts, delay in filing the present appeal is ordered to be condoned. The application is, thus, disposed of. Cr. MPST No. 1133 of 2025 Reply to the application, if any, be filed, on or before the next date of hearing. List on 22.8.2025. Record of trial Court be called for, for the next date of hearing. List on 22.8.2025. (Virender Singh) Judge July 11, 2025 (kalpana)